pplicant"), on 15 November 2003.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms O. Preobrazhenskaya and Ms K. Moskalenko, lawyers practising in Moscow. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions and that the courts at two levels of jurisdiction had refused to secure his participation in the civil proceedings concerning his claims for compensation for damage resulting from detention in such conditions.
4. On 19 January 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
5. The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having examined the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
6. The applicant was born in 1966 and is serving a prison sentence in Kaliningrad Region.
A. Conditions of detention
7. On 16 March 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of possession of illegal drugs. From 16 March to 30 December 1998 he was detained in remand prison No. IZ-39/1 in Kaliningrad pending investigation and trial.
1. Number of inmates per cell
8. Pursuant to the certificate issued by the remand prison administration on 16 March 2007 and produced by the Government, the applicant was detained in four cells. From 16 March to 24 April 1998 he was held in cell No. 29, which measured 7.7 square metres. From 24 April to 15 June 1998 he was placed in cell No. 145, which measured 7.9 square metres. From 15 June to 26 August 1998 he was kept in cell No. 8, which measured 7.8 square metres. Lastly, from 26 August to 29 December 1998 he was held in cell No. 4/19, which measured 14 square metres. According to the Government, the information on the numbers of inmates detained in the same cells as the applicant was not available as the documents had been destroyed. The Government, relying on the same certificate, further submitted that at all times the applicant had had an individual bed and bedding.
9. The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements and the period of detention there. He submitted that the cells in the remand prison were always overcrowded. The number of bunk beds in the cells was insufficient and the inmates had to take turns to sleep. There were six beds in cell No. 29, while there were twelve inmates held there. In cell No. 145 there were ten or eleven inmates who had to share four beds. No bedding was provided for him and all the time he had been detained in cell No. 29 he had had to sleep just on the metal mesh of the bunk bed. Then his relatives sent him a mattress, a blanket, a pillow, sheets and a pillow case.
2. Sanitary and hygienic conditions
10. Relying on the certificates issued by the management of the remand prison on 16 and 27 March 2007, the Government provided the following description of the cells where the applicant had been detained. The windows had glass panes and were provided with air vents which could be kept open. Each cell was equipped with mechanical and exhaust ventilation. When the inmates went out for exercise the door vents in the cells were kept open too, to allow for additional air circulation. The central heating ensured an adequate temperature of 18 °C. The lights in the cells were constantly on, which permitted permanent supervision of the inmates detained in the cells and the prevention of altercations between them, and ag
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 23 24 25
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
